No Way A GM Plays the Jerome Gambit! (Part 1)

Readers of this blog have seen a lot of creative and historical coverage of the Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+, and related openings, such as the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+. In addition, there have been explorations of "proto-Jerome Gambits" - earlier lines of play that might have inspired Alonzo Wheeler Jerome to create his opening. 

One such Jerome Gambit "relative" was showcased in "Adolf Albin Plays the Jerome Gambit (Part 1 & 2)", highlighting the game Albin,A - Schlechter,C, Trebitsch Memorial Tournament Vienna, 1914. The game began 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Qe2 Bc5 5.Bxf7+, which easily could have been a transposition from 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qe2 Nf6, a "modern" (no 5.Nxe5+) Jerome Gambit.

White's 4th move was anticipated at least by James Mason, who, in the August 1895 British Chess Magazine, gave a game “played recently by correspondence between Brandfort and Bloemfontein, South Africa” which went 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Qe2 d6. Mason suggested the move 4…Nf6, because “there would be plenty of time to play the Pawn - perhaps two squares instead of one. For, as the Cape Times remarks, if White adopts the ‘Jerome Gambit’ 5.Bxf7+ Black replies 5…Kxf7 6.Qc4+ d5 7.Qxc5 Nxe4 with advantage.”

The Salvio Gambit (see"The Salvio Gambit??" and "The Salvio Gambit?? [more]"), from analysis from the early 1600s, is related: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 and now 3.Qe2 Nf6/Nc6 4.Bxf7+.

It is probably timely to reiterate that I refer to 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+ as the "Abrahams Jerome Gambit" (see "Abrahams Jerome Gambit" Part 1 & Part 2), not because Alonzo Wheeler Jerome ever played the line, nor Abrahams, as far as I know, but because it was referred to as the Jerome Gambit in The Chess Mind (1951) and The Pan Book of Chess (1965), by Gerald Abrahams.

It is hard to overlook another possible precursor: the game Hamppe - Meitner, Vienna Club, 1872, which begins a little bit like a reversed Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.Na4 Bxf2+ and is covered in "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part I, Part II, Part III, and Endnote)".

Another opening with themes akin to the Jerome - with an initial Knight sacrifice at f7 - which may have caught Alonzo Jerome's eye - is the Sarratt Attack, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 usually followed by 5...Nh6 6.Nxf7 Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7. Similar (although I occasionally mix them up) is the Vitzthum Attack, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 followed by 6.Qh5. A good review can be found in the post "Capt. Evans Faces the Sarratt Attack".

Then, of course, there was the rumor that culminated in the post, here,"A GM plays the Jerome Gambit??", followed by "Here, have a Bishop..." and "Here, have another...".

That was topped by the rumor that Alexander Alekhine had defended against the Jerome Gambit - see "The Jerome Gambit is Going to Drive Me... (Part 1 & Part 2)"; and then, sadly "Much Ado About... Nothing".


Oh, oh, oh... Can we get back to the time when a modern, 2700+-rated Grandmaster didn't play the Jerome Gambit??

[to be continued]

A Distant Relative?

While the origin of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) appears to have been some time after Alonzo Wheeler Jerome was mustered out of the army as a 2^nd Lieutenant in August 1865, at Hilton Head, North Carolina (he returned to Mineola, New York, where he worked in a factory that manufactured agricultural machinery); and before "New Chess Opening" appeared in the April 1874 edition of the Dubuque Chess Journal, it is possible that the inventor was influenced by contemporary or past games and analysis.

The spectacular game Hamppe - Meitner, Vienna 1872, has been explored in this column as a possible inspiration: see "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit?" Parts I, II, III, and endnote, as well as "Hamppe - Meitner Revealed" and "Godfather of Oz?".

To this I would like to add an "offspring" game, clearly a decendent of "Hamppe - Meitner", and therefore related, if only by analysis, to the Jerome Gambit.

The game receives coverage in one of Edward Winter's "Chess Jottings" which notes

The game was published in the March 1957 BCM [British Chess Monthly], page 59, the source being Leonard Barden’s The Field column of 17 January 1957. That must mean that Le Lionnais’ ‘1957’ was wrong. The BCM (D.J. Morgan’s Quotes and Queries column) gives ‘1956 Swiss Boys’ Championship’ and states that the players were R. Frauenfelder and M. Gschwend.  

Rudolf Frauenfelder – Max Gschwend

Oerlikon, July 1956  

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Qe2 Na5

Although this is not a Giuoco Piano game, readers have seen both the Qd1-e2 and ...Nc6-h5 themes covered here. The following move is no surprise, either.

4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+

White's two Queen moves have "reversed colors" for the opening, and what follows are the moves of Hamppe - Meitner.

5...Ke6 6.Qf5+ Kd6 7.d4 Kc6 8.Qxe5 Kb6 9.Na3 a6 10.Qxa5+ Kxa5 11.Nc4+ Kb5 12.a4+ Kxc4 13.Ne2 Bb4+ 14.Kd1 Bc3 15.b3+ Kb4 16.Nxc3 Kxc3 17.Bb2+ Kb4 18.Ba3+ Kc3

Drawn by perpetual check.

Welcome to the World of Wall

Of late, Bill Wall (see Chessville's "Bill Wall's Wonderful World of Chess") has been investigating the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and other Jerome-ish openings.

I've had fun playing over a number of his games and have decided to present several, starting in his pre-Jerome Gambit era. Even early on, his brand of wild, brash and outrageous play had some Jerome-ish tinges to it.

Watt,B - Wall

Taylorsville, NC, 1975

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5

Having his own ideas, but this was too much for his opponent to sit still and take.

3.Na4

Cue the scary violin music: we have seen this before in "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? Part I, Part II, Part III", "Godfather of Oz??" and "Hamppe - Meitner Revealed".

3...Bxf2+ 4.Kxf2 Qh4+

5.Ke3 Qf4+ 6.Kd3

6...Nf6

Hampe - Meitner, Vienna, 1870 continued 6...d5 7.Kc3 Qxe4 8.Kb3 Na6 9.a3 Qxa4+ 10.Kxa4 Nc5+ 11.Kb4 a5+ 12.Kxc5 Ne7 13.Bb5+ Kd8 14.Bc6 b6+ 15.Kb5 Nxc6 16.Kxc6 Bb7+ 17.Kb5 Ba6+ draw

7.Nc3

In the September 2002 issue of Chess Life, Grandmaster Andy Soltis suggested 7.Qf3 as an improvement in this line. (I have no idea if he was familiar with Bill's game here.)

7...d5

8.Qe1

Understandably faltering under pressure. Rybka suggests that White could find his way to a balanced game with: 8.Qf3 dxe4+ 9.Nxe4 Bf5 10.Qxf4 exf4 11.Ke2 Nxe4 12.d3 Nf6 13.Bxf4 Nc6 14.Nf3 0-0-0 15.Re1 Nd5 16.Bg3 Ndb4

analysis diagram





8...dxe4+ 9.Kc4 e3+

It's "open season" on Kings...

10.Kb3 Nc6 11.a3 Be6+ White resigned

 

Godfather of Oz??

I was wandering the Internet the other day, and tumbled onto the ChessExpress blogsite of Shaun Press of  Canberra, Australia. He had an interesting post on a line that has been looked at here – see "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit?" Part I, Part II, Part III and Endnote, and "Hamppe - Meitner Revealed" – even if it's not a Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)

Sunday, 19 July 2009
A forced win in Blitz

There are certain openings that work better at Blitz than they do at longer time controls. Normally these are trappy lines involving material investment, although sometimes they are so dodgy that the opponent chews up time looking for the immediate refutation.

With the increased popularity of online "bullet' chess (1 0), you now see the Halloween Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5) or the Hiroshima Variation of the Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.Qh5) becoming more well known. But there are also the 'classics' that you may need to know.

I watched the post-mortem of a game yesterday involving a very early sac on f2. While I didn't see the game myself, I did see various positions that may have arisen. In the end the conclusion from both players was that it was winning for Black, but mainly due to the fast time control.

While I don't have the game played yesterday, I have another game in the same line, but with the following kicker. Rather than being a forced win, it turns out that it may well be a forced draw, and a draw that has been around for over 100 years.


Villanueva,M (2029) - Gargiulo,L (2222)
LXXVII ch-ARG Tres de Febrero ARG (3), 05.09.2003

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.Na4 Bxf2+ 4.Kxf2 Qh4+ 5.Ke3 Qf4+ 6.Kd3 d5 7.Kc3 Qxe4 8.Kb3 Na6 9.a3 Qxa4+ 10.Kxa4 Nc5+ 11.Kb4 a5+ 12.Kxc5 Ne7 13.Bb5+ Kd8 14.Bc6 b6+ 15.Kb5 Nxc6 16.Kxc6 Bb7+ 17.Kb5 Ba6+ 18.Kc6 Bb7+ 19.Kb5 ½-½

Eric Schiller Doesn't Play the Jerome Gambit

American author and FIDE Master Eric Schiller doesn't play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+). Despite his interest in unusual opening lines, he has spent far more time providing the club player with refutations of the Jerome.

His 2003 (with John Watson) Survive and Beat Annoying Chess Openings has a chapter on "Bashing the Jerome Gambit," which would be something akin to "Weapons of Mass Destruction versus the Mosquito" if it didn't at least shine a light on the poor, neglected creation of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome.

Still, as a followup to my two posts on Adolf Albin and the Jerome Gambit (see Part 1 and Part 2), I was wandering through my database when I came across the following game. There's at least a slight resemblance in the play to, well, you know...

Schiller - Shipman
New York, 1981

1.e4 Nc6 2.Bc4 e5 3.d3 Na5


4.Bxf7+
International Master Gary Lane (author of a couple of books on the Bishop's Opening), in one of his Opening Lanes columns at ChessCafe, wrote, in response to a reader who had asked about this line

I wanted to dismiss this bishop sacrifice, but in the spirit of the King's Gambit, I had to see what happens. I was surprised to realize that White is doing very well.

Michael Goeller (maintaining the best online resource for the Bishop's Opening), in his article on "The Hamppe - Meitner Motif" (see "Hamppe -Meitner Revealed" as well as "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit?" Part I, Part II, Part III, and Endnote) for the Kenilworth Chess Club website is more assertive, noting

If White does not have this move it's hard to see how he might even try to gain the advantage.

4...Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Ke6
Of course, the Jerome-ish 5...g6 was an option for Black, but not a particularly good one.

White plays 6.Qxe5 attacking the knight and rook, when 6...Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Nf6 8.Bxb4 is just very good for White – LaneInteresting, but ultimately unsatisfactory, is 5...g6!? 6.Qxe5 Nc6 7.Qxh8 h6 8.Bxh6! (8.Qc3?? Bb4! points up how much difference d3 for White can make!) 8...Bxh6 (8...Nxh6 9.Nc3) 9. Nf3 and White's Queen will not be trapped, meaning White retains a slight material edge and the safer King – Goeller

6.Qf5+

White has a much simpler alternative here: 6.Nf3! Qf6 (6...Nc6? 7.Ng5+ Ke7 8.Qf7+) 7.Ng5+ Ke7 8.Nc3 c6 and White wins back his material with advantage by 9.b4 or 9.Nxh7!? – Goeller
Instead, 6.Nf3 is met by 6...d6! and this simple way to deal with the threat against the e5-pawn 7.Ng5+ Kd7 8.Nf7 Qe8 9.Qf3 Nf6 10.Nxh8 Be7 slightly favors Black because he has two pieces for the rook, but 11.d4 is interesting since the king is misplaced on d7 – Lane

6...Kd6 7.d4

It appears that Schiller wished (mistakenly) to transpose directly to Hamppe - Meitner, but he thus missed his chance to turn White's extra tempo to advantage – Goeller

The move 7.f4 is stronger, according to Goeller and Lane ("The chase is on and White is in hot pursuit of the king").
7...Kc6 8.Qxe5 d5
9.exd5+ Kb6

Black can play for the win with 9...Qxd5! 10.Qe8+ Bd7!! 11.Qxa8 Nf6 12.Qxa7 (12.Nc3 Qxg2 13.Be3 Nc4 14.O-O-O Nxe3 15.fxe3 Qxh1) 12...Qxg2 13.Qxa5 Qxh1 14.d5+ Nxd5 15.Qa4+ Kb6 16.Qxd7 Qxg1+ 17.Ke2 Qxc1 18.Qxd5 Bc5. The text move should also favor Black, but it is much less clear – Goeller

10.Nc3 Qe7 11.Na4+ Kb5 12.Nc3+
Here 12.b3 was the move to draw.

12...Kb6
There was more in 12...Ka6.
13.Bf4 Bf5 Drawn

If Black had wanted to play for a win, he might have tried 13...Nc4!. It remains unclear to me whether this was a pre-arranged draw gone wrong or a real contest – Goeller

Hamppe - Meitner Revealed

Michael Goeller, of the Kenilworthian Chess Club (see "Related Sites" on this blog) has a comprehensive article on the exciting Hamppe - Meitner Motif (see Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part I), (Part II) and (Endnote) for its relationship to Alonzo Wheeler Jerome") on his website.

I highly recommend you check out "The Hamppe - Meitner Motif", and the Kenilworthian site itself as a treasure trove of articles covering a whole host of topics.

Wonderful work, Mike, as ever!

Offside!

While putting together a post on a rare variation of the Italian Game (see "Don't make me go Jerome all over you...") I recalled a similar idea – and a similar response – with colors reversed in the old Hamppe -Meitner game (see "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part I), (Part II), (Part III) (Endnote) ).


That got me thinking: are there any examples of an earlier "offside" Knight?

It didn't take me long to round up a number of examples.

Sidran - Vong
email, 1992

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+

The Jerome-ish solution. Naturally there is also 4.Nxe5 Nxc4 ( 4...Qe7 5.Bxf7+ Kd8 6.d4 Nf6 7.Bg5 d6 8.Nc3 dxe5 9.dxe5+ Nd7 10.Bxe7+ Bxe7 11.e6 Bb4 12.exd7 Bxd7 13.Be6 Bxc3+ 14.bxc3 Black resigned, Chung - Bonney, corr 1995) 5.Nxf7 Kxf7 6.Qf3+ Nf6 7.Qc3 d5 8.exd5 Nb6 9.b4 Qe7+ 10.Kf1 Qd7 11.a4 Nxa4 12.Rxa4 Qb5+ 13.d3 Qxa4 14.Bg5 Bd6 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.h4 Qxb4 17.Qxb4 Bxb4 18.f3 Bc5 19.Nd2 Bd4 20.Ne4 a6 21.c3 a5 22.cxd4 Kf8 23.Nxf6 c6 24.dxc6 bxc6 25.f4 c5 26.dxc5 Kf7 27.Ne4 Kf8 28.c6 h6 White resigned, Matogrosso - Jappe, Utrecht 1992

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+

Alternately 5.d4 d5 6.exd5 exd4 7.Ne5+ Kf6 8.Qxd4 Ke7 9.Bg5+ Nf6 10.0-0 b6 11.b4 Be6 12.bxa5 Qxd5 13.Bxf6+ gxf6 14.Qb4+ c5 15.Qa4 Qxe5 16.Nd2 Bh6 17.Nc4 Qd4 18.Rfe1 Kf7 19.Nxb6 axb6 20.Qc6 Qd5 21.Qc7+ Kg6 22.axb6 Rhc8 23.Qg3+ Kf7 24.Rad1 Qb7 25.Rxe6 Kxe6 26.Qh3+ Ke7 27.Qxh6 Qxb6 28.Qg7+ Ke6 29.Qd7+ Ke5 30.Rd5+ Black resigned, bigbreakout - iggydog, www.GameKnot.com 2005

5...Ke6 6.Qg4+ Kf6 7.d4 d6 8.Bg5 checkmate

Well, that was... awkward.

Surely Black had better defenses...

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Endnote)

Chess research is sometimes incomplete or contradictory and often a mystery wanting a solution.

I gave analysis from Wolfgang Heidenfeld's book Draw! (1982) in "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part III)" because it gave the strongest play for both sides in line with the progress of the game Wind - Winckelman, correspondence 1993.

Draw! was not the most far-reaching or most recent resource available to me.

Consider the following quote from Edmar Mednis in his King Power in Chess (1982)

Strong winning chances are offered by the more active 11.Kb5!. Black still must play 11...a5, after which 12.Qe2 (Heidenfeld) is parried by 12...Ne6!! (Seidman). The threatened 13...Bd7 mate forces 13.Ka4 Nc5+ 14.Kb5 Ne6 etc., with repetition of moves for a draw.Therefore, in order to win, White must try other defensive methods. Two promising ones are 12.b4!? (Kastner) and 12. c4! (Presley).

The move 12.Qe2, which Mednis attributed to Heidenfeld, was not mentioned in Draw! – it was from Heidenfeld's earlier book, Grosse Remispartien (1968). It is not surprising that Mednis relied on the latter, as the former and King Power in Chess were published the same year.

The other references – Seidman, Kastner, and Presley – are unclear.

Note also that in "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part III)" Heidenfeld is quoted that he had mentioned the move 11.Kb5 in Deutsche Schachzeitung in 1972 – four years after Grosse Remispartien. He also attributed, after 11...a5, the move 12.b4 to Ettner, not Kastner; and overlooked the possibility of 12.c4 – although, after 11...Ne7 he attributed it to Schmedes.

Andrew Soltis, in his Chess Life column "Chess to Enjoy" for September 2002 wrote

Wolfgang Heidenfeld, the German-Irish-South African author of a book about spectacular draws, criticized this one [move] and said that instead of Hamppe's 11.Kb4, there's a win in 12.Kb5 a5 and now 12.Qe2!

Note that Soltis referred to the 1968 book by Heidenfeld, not the 1982 one (which should have been available to him). Soltis continued

But when this was discussed in the pages of Chess Life & Review nearly 25 years ago, senior master Herbert Seidman pointed out that Black had a simple improvement in 11...Ne6!, threatening 12...Bd7 mate. White's only response to 11...Ne6 is – 12. Ka4! allowing 12...Nc5+ 13.Kb5 Ne6! with another repetition...

So it appears that Mednis' "Seidman" referred to a Chess Life & Review article from around 1978.

More Soltis

Is that the end for Hamppe-Meitner? No, because defenders of the game argued that Black's error was 11...a5. The right way is 11...Ne7! with the idea of ...a7-a5.

Soltis then looked at 12.d4 and 12.b4 and 12.Qh5 – but not 12.c4 which was the best line according to Heidenfeld in 1982!
Readers are encouraged to dive in with their own ideas, as well as with clarifications of Ettner, Kastner, Presley, Schmedes and Seidman.

(Chess researchers are reminded of the fantastic 4 DVD set Chess Review & Chess Life Complete Collection 1933-1975, reviewed here, and available here.)


graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part III)

Referred to by some as the "Immortal Draw," Hamppe - Meitner, Vienna 1872 can still amuse and delight chess players today.
Here's a modern, improved example.

Wind,Maurits - Winckelmann,Thomas
correspondence, 1993

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.Na4 Bxf2+


See "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part I)"

4.Kxf2 Qh4+ 5.Ke3 Qf4+ 6.Kd3 d5 7.Kc3 Qxe4 8.Kb3 Na6


For 8...Nc6 and Steinitz see "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part II)"

9.a3 Qxa4+ 10.Kxa4 Nc5+ 11.Kb5


"Correct is 11.Kb5!, a move I suggested in Deutsche Schachzeitung 1972, without, however, myself realising its potential" wrote Wolfgang Heidenfeld in Draw! (1982)

Hamppe - Meitner continued instead with 11.Kb4, with the eventual draw, as did a "friendly skirmish" between Alexander Winster and Susan Eira played in London in 1953: 11...a5+ 12.Kb5 Bd7+ 13.Kxc5 b6+?? ( 13...Ne7 14.Nf3 b6 mate) 14.Kxd5 Nf6+ 15.Kxe5 0-0-0 16.d4 Rhe8+ 17.Kf4 Re4+ 18.Kf3? Bg4+ 19.Kf2 Bxd1 20.Bg5 Bxc2 21.Bxf6 gxf6 22.Re1 Rdxd4 23.Ba6+ Kd7 24.Nf3 Rxe1 25.Nxd4? Rxh1 26.Nxc2 Rxh2 27.Bb5+ c6 28.Bc4 Ke7 29.Nd4 c5 30.Nb5 1/2-1/2

11...a5

11...Ne7 is better. Wrote Heidenfeld

This is a suggestion by another German amateur, Johannes Schmedes, so as to avoid the freeing manoeuvre, b4. In most cases this would lead back to – and thus revalidate – the game continuation, but there is one exception: 12.c4! (just as White frees square b4 for the return of the K... so he tries to free square c4... If then 12...d4 13.Kxc5! a5 14.Qa4+ Kd8 15.Qxa5! Rxa5+ 16.Kb4 and White wins.

12.b4

It is only this move, found by the German amateur Josef Ettner, that justifies 11.Kb5. Its point lies in the fact that the b-pawn attacks two black units so that White is assured of freeing square b4 for the return of his K to civilized regions.– Heidenfeld

Taking the Knight, instead, leads to the standard draw: 12.Kxc5 Ne7 13.Bb5+ Kd8 14.Bc6 b6+ 15.Kb5 Nxc6 16.Kxc6 Bb7+ 17.Kb5 Ba6+ 18.Kc6 Bb7+ Ax Rombaldoni - A Bove, U20 Fiuggi, Italy.

12...Ne7 13.bxa5 Nc6 14.Kxc5 Rxa5+ 15.Bb5 Be6 16.c4 d4 17.Nf3 f6 18.Nxd4 1-0

Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part II)

Wilhelm Steinitz never faced the Jerome Gambit, as far as we know, but he did encounter Meitner's counter gambit – see "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part I)" – in an exhibition game during the same year that Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's analysis first saw print. Steinitz's play is a good example of how to combat such a wild-eyed attack.

Steinitz,W - Steinkuehler,G

simultaneous exhibition, Great Britain, 1874

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.Na4 Bxf2+

4.Kxf2 Qh4+ 5.Ke3 Qf4+ 6.Kd3 d5 7.Kc3 Qxe4 8.Kb3 Nc6

Hamppe - Meitner, Vienna 1872 continued instead with 8...Na6, with the Knight intending to go to c5.

White's King is still uncomfortable, and he needs to take pains to keep it safe.

9.c3 b5

Perhaps underestimating the strength of White's forced reply.

More promising seems to be 9...d4 10.Qf3 Be6+ 11.Ka3 Qh4 with the idea of 12...Qe7+. Of course, the b-pawn is off-limits (10.Bxb5 Rb8).

10.Nc5 Na5+ 11.Ka3 Nc4+ 12.Bxc4 Qxc4 13.d4 a5

It seems important to mention that the future World Champion is handling the White pieces, although his next move effectively ends the "King hunt" part of the game.

14.Qe2 Qxe2 15.Nxe2 e4

Black now has a protected passed pawn, as well as a 4-to-2 Kingside pawn majority. However, White has an extra piece and better development.

16.b3 Ne7 17.Bf4 c6 18.Kb2 f6 19.a4

Steinitz begins to take command.

19...Kf7 20.axb5 cxb5 21.Bc7 Nc6 22.Nf4 Ne7 23.Rhf1 Re8 24.Bxa5 g5

Putting the pawns into motion, but it looks like the last "Hurrah!"

25.Ne2 f5 26.g3 Kg6 27.Bc7 Rxa1 28.Rxa1 Nc6 29.b4 Rf8 30.Ra8 Kg7 31.Bd6 Re8 32.Kc2

Steinkuehler's pinned "bad Bishop" is of very little help. When Steinitz's King reaches the battlefield, the struggle will truly be over.

32...Rd8 33.Be5+ Nxe5

The resulting passed pawn is an annoyance, rather than a target.

34.dxe5 Rf8 35.e6 Rg8 36.Kd2 Kf6 37.Ra7 Rg7 38.Rxg7 Kxg7 39.Ke3 Kf6 40.Nd4 1-0

Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part I)

It is not (yet) clear from what Alonzo Wheeler Jerome received his inspiration to create the Jerome Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ but the following legendary game must have gotten his creativity stirred up.

From the British Chess Magazine, November 1899

We take the score of the following extraordinary game from the Glasgow Herald, which was indebted for it to Capt. Mackenzie. It is said to have been played about 20 years ago in the Vienna Club, and was first published, we find, by Turf, Field, and Farm, and afterwards reprinted in the Chess-Player's Quarterly Chronicle of 1872.
Notes by C.E. Ranken [translated from descriptive to algebraic notation] 

Hamppe - Meitner
Vienna Club, 1872


1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.Na4 Bxf2+

We cannot believe this sacrifice to be sound. The simple retreat of the B to e7 is sufficient answer to White's bizarre third move, since it leaves his N out of play.

4.Kxf2 Qh4+ 5.Ke3
A feasible course seems to be as follows: 5.g3 Qxe4 6.Qe2! Qxh1 (If 6...Qxa4 White at once recovers his two pawns, with the better position) 7.Nf3 Nf6 (This or 7...Nh6 is obviously the only move to save the Queen) 8.h3 (Better than 8.Qxe5+ ) 8...e4 (If 8...Ng4+ 9.hxg4 d6 10.d4 Bxg4 11.Bg2 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 and wins) 9.Bg2 Ng4+ 10.hxg4 Qh6 11.Qxe4+ Qe6 12.Nc5 Qxe4 13.Nxe4 d5 14.Nc3 c6 15.g5 and Black has only Rook and Pawn against the two minor pieces

5...Qf4+ 6.Kd3 d5 7.Kc3 

7.Nc3 might perhaps be ventured, and if 7...dxe4+ 8.Kc4; Or White could play 7.Qe2 and if 7...dxe4+ 8.Kc3 

7...Qxe4 8.Kb3

A pretty variation would arise here from 8.d4 exd4+ 9.Qxd4 Qe1+ 10.Bd2 Qxa1 11.Nf3! Qxa2 (if 11...Kf8 12.Qxd5 Nc6 13.Bc4 Be6 14.Qc5+ and wins) 12.Qxg7 Qxa4 13.Qxh8 Qc6+ There appears nothing better. 14.Kb3 Qg6 15.Bd3 with a winning attack. 

8...Na6 9.a3 Qxa4+

An exhibition of fireworks worthy of Morphy or Blackburne. This brilliant sacrifice will, as far as we can see, stand the test of analysis, and but for White's able defence it might have won.

10.Kxa4 Nc5+ 11.Kb4 

Best; if 11.Kb5 the reply would be 11...b6 

11...a5+ 12.Kxc5



If 12.Kc3 then 12...d4+ 13.Kc4 b6 and still White would have no escape. 

12...Ne7 13.Bb5+

The only way to escape mate. 

13...Kd8 14.Bc6 b6+ 15.Kb5 Nxc6 16.Kxc6


If 16.Ka4 Nd4 and mates next move. If 16.c3 then 16...Bd7 with the same result 

16...Bb7+ 17.Kb5 

Should 17.Kxb7 then 17...Kd7 18.Qg4+ Kd6 and White has no resource 

17...Ba6+ and draws by perpetual check